AUTOPOIESIS, CULTURE, AND SOCIETY

The concept of autopoiesis has long surpassed the realm of biology. It has been used in areas so diverse as sociology, psychotherapy, management, anthropology, organizational culture, and many others. This circumstance transformed it in a very important and useful instrument for the investigation of reality. Years ago, Chilean scientists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela proposed the following question: to what extent human social phenomenology could be seen as a biological phenomenology? The purpose of this article is to look for an answer to this question. However, before getting to it I think that it is necessary to review some of the fundamental principles introduced by these two authors.
 

Autopoiesis

Poiesis is a Greek term that means production. Autopoiesis means autoproduction. This word appeared for the first time in the international literature in 1974, in an article published by Varela, Maturana, and Uribe, in which living beings are seen as systems that produce themselves in a ceaseless way. Thus, it can be said that an autopoietic system is at the same time the producer and the product.

In Maturana’s viewpoint, the term \"autopoiesis\" expresses what he called \"the center of the constitutive dynamics of living systems\". To live this dynamics in an autonomous way, living systems need to obtain resources from the environment in which they live. In other words, they are simultaneously autonomic and dependent systems. So, this condition is clearly a paradox. This self-contradictory condition cannot be adequately understood by linear thinking, according to which everything must be reduced to the binary model yes/no, or/or. When dealing with living beings, things, and events, linear thinking begins by dividing them. The next step is the analysis of the separate parts. No attempts are made to look for the dynamic relationships that exists between them.

This autonomy-dependency paradox, which is a characteristic feature of living beings, is better understood when one uses a way of thinking that encompasses systems thinking (which examines the dynamic relationships between the parts) and linear thinking. This model has been proposed by French author Edgar Morin, who called it \"complex thinking\".

Maturana and Varela proposed an instructive metaphor that is worthwhile to recall here. In their viewpoint, living systems are self-producing machines. No other kind of machine is able to do this: their production always consists in something that is different from themselves. Since autopoietic systems are simultaneously producers and products, it could also be said that they are circular systems, that is, they work in terms of productive circularity. Maturana maintains that as long as we are not able to understand the systemic character of living cells, we will not be able to adequately understand living organisms. I reaffirm that this understanding can only be adequately provided by complex thinking. However, we live in a culture that is deeply formatted by linear thinking. This fact resulted in important consequences, some of which are very grave, as we will see later in this text.

 

Structure, organization, and structural determinism

As stated by Maturana and Varela, living beings are structure-determined systems. What happens to us in a given moment depends on our structure in this moment. These authors call this concept structural determinism. The structure of a given system is the way by which their components interconnect with no changes in their organization. Let us see an example related to a non-living system — a table. It can have any of its parts modified, but keeps being a table as long as these parts are left articulated. However, if we disconnect and separate them, the system can no longer be recognized as a table, because its organization is lost. Thus, we could say that the system is extinguished. In the same way, the structure of a living system changes all the time, which demonstrates that it is continuously adapting itself to the equally continuous environmental changes. Nevertheless, the loss of the organization would result in the death of the system.

Thus, organization determines the identity of a system, whereas structure determines how its parts are physically articulated. Organization identifies a system and corresponds to its general configuration. Structure shows the way parts interconnect. The moment in which a system loses its organization corresponds to the limit of its tolerance to structural changes.

The fact that living systems are submitted to structural determinism does not mean that they are foreseeable. In other words, they are determined but this does not mean that they are predetermined. As a matter of fact, since their structure changes all the time — and in congruence with the aleatory modifications of the environment —, it is not adequate to speak about predetermination. We should rather speak about circularity. In order to avoid any doubts about this issue, we would better bear in mind this detail: what happens to a system in a given moment depends on its structure in this very moment.

The world in which we live is the world that we build out of our perceptions, and it is our structure that enables us to have these perceptions. So, our world is the world that we have knowledge of. If the reality that we perceive depends on our structure — which is individual —, there are as many realities as perceiving people. This explains why the so-called purely objective knowledge is impossible: the observer is not apart from the phenomena he or she observes. Since we are determined by the way the parts of which we are made interconnet and work together (that is, by our structure), the environment can only trigger in our organisms the alterations that are determined in the structure of these organisms. A cat can only perceive the world and interact with it by means of its feline structure, not with a configuration that is does not have, as for instance the human structure. By the same token, we humans cannot see the world the same way as a cat does.
Thus, we do not have adequate arguments to affirm the reality of this objectivity which we use to be so proud of. In Maturana’s viewpoint, when someone says that he or she is objective, it means that he or she has access to a privileged worldview, and that this privilege in some way enables he or she to exercise an authority that takes for granted the obedience of everybody else who is not objective. This is one of the basis of the so-called logical reasoning.

Our conditioning leads us to see the world as an object, thus we think of ourselves as separate from it. And we go even further: through the ego, we see ourselves as observers separate from the rest of our own psyche. In order to operate such an objective proposal, it is necessary to establish a boundary between the ego and the world, the same way we did between the ego and the rest of our totality. So, since we are divided the same will happen with our knowledge, which will also result divided and limited.

This is the final result of our alleged objectivity: a fragmented and restricted worldview. It is from this position that we think of ourselves as authorized to judge everybody who does not agree with us, and condemn them as \"non-objective\" and \"intuitive\" people. In other words, departing from a fragmented and limited viewpoint, we think that is possible to arrive to the truth and show it to our peers — a truth that we imagine that is the same for everybody.

 

Structural coupling

According to Maturana and Varela, living systems and the environment change in a congruent way. In their comparison, the foot is always adjusting to the shoe and vice versa. This is a good manner to say that the environment triggers changes in the structure of systems, and systems answer by triggering changes in the environment and so on, in a circular way. When a system influences another, the influenced one answers by influencing back, that is, it develops a compensatory behavior. The first organism then proceeds to act again over the second one, which replies once more — and so on, as long as the two systems keep going in this coupling condition.

We already know that living systems are determined by their structure. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that when a system is in structural coupling mode with another one, at a given moment of this relationship the conduct of one of them is a constant source of stimuli for compensatory answers from the other. These are, therefore, transactional and recurrent events. When a system influences another, the influenced one sustains a structural change — a deformation. On replying, the influenced system gives to the influencer an interpretation of how this influence was perceived. A dialogue is therefore established. In other words, a consensual context is started, through which structurally coupled organisms interact. This interaction is a linguistic domain.

To put it in another way, in this transactional ambit the conduct of each organism corresponds to a description of the behavior of its partner. Each one \"tells\" to the other how its \"message\" has been perceived. This explains why there is no competition between natural systems. What exists is cooperation. However, when culture meets nature — as happens with human beings — things change.

I reaffirm that there is no competition (in the predatory sense of the term) between non-human living beings. When men refer to some animals as predators, they are anthropomorphizing them, that is, projecting on them a condition that is peculiar to humans. Since they do not compete between themselves, non-human living systems do not \"dictate\" each other norms of conduct. If natural conditions keep unchanged, there are no authoritarian commandments nor unconditional obediency between them. Living beings are autonomous systems. Its conduct is determined according to their own structures, that is, according to the way they interpret influences that come from the environment. They are not subdued systems, that is, they are not unconditionally obedient to outside determinations.

In the case of human societies, in which the prevailing conditions are not only those provided by nature, this is exactly what marketing and other means of mass conditioning try (and in many cases succeed) to do with entire populations. Thus, it is possible to reach to mass-production of subdued people, provided conditioning stimuli are widespread and constant. This is what psychoanalyst Felix Guattari calls subjectivities production. With this concept, he introduces the idea of an industrial, mass-produced, capitalism-formatted subjectivity. This is the result of the operation of huge conditioning systems, by means of which capital (today in its neoliberal triumphant phase) builds and maintains its immense market of power. In other words, all these efforts are directed to the consolidation and continuing operation of violence against the most basic of the characteristics of living systems — autopoiesis.

The notion that living systems are structurally determined is of utmost importance for many areas of human activity. In psychotherapy, for instance, transference and counter transference can be understood as manifestations of this structural coupling, in which changes sustained by the client are determined only by his or her structure. They cannot, therefore, be considered as caused or produced in any way by the therapist. As a consequence, it is very important to keep in mind that the consensual domain that results from structural coupling of autopoietic systems is indeed a linguistic context — but not in the mere sense of transmission of information.

Sociocultural extension

Maturana and Varela pointed out that Darwin’s evolutive theory transcended the simple diversity of living beings and their origin and extended to many areas, as for example the culture. As we know, this theoretical proposal emphasizes the dimensions of species, aptitude and natural selection. These notions are nowadays the basis for social darwinism, which is the utilization of Darwin’s ideas to justify predatory competition between men. In this sense, it is a fundamentalist interpretation.

In the same way, the idea of transcendence has been used to justify social exclusion and allied phenomena, as political and economic exploitation. On account of this, individuals would have a very small meaning and value as compared to species. As a consequence, people are supposed to give everything (which includes their lives) for the benefit of perpetuation of species — but the opposite is by no means always true.

When speaking about this issue, Maturana and Varela recall the following arguments, which have been largely applied to our societies:

a) the evolution is the evolution of human species;

b) according to the law of natural selection, the more fit will survive;

c) competition leads to evolution, and this applies to the human beings too;

d) those who did not survive were not able to contribute to the history of human species.

Summing up, individuals should let natural phenomena evolve and stay in a kind of passive attitude — everything for species sake.

However, the same authors state that these arguments should not prevail when one needs to justify the subordination of the individual to the species, because biologic phenomenology occurs in the individual, not in species. In other words, these arguments should not prevail because biologic phenomenology belongs to the part, not to the whole. Since the way of being of a given individual is determined by its structure — which is autopoietic —, there should not exist discardable individuals, either in relation to species, society, mankind, and any other instances, important or transcendent as they may be.
 

Ordinations, societies and individuals

In nature — as stated by Maturana and Varela —, there is a tendency to the constitution of increasingly complex autopoietic systems. This occurs through the coupling of simpler autopoietic unities to build up more complex organizations, in which the hierarchy principle is the rule: a system is inside another one, that is superior to it; this one is, by its turn, inside another one, that is superior to it; and so on. This happens in multicellular organisms and, according to Maturana and Varela, maybe in the cell itself.

The main question is to know whether this circumstance could be applicable to human societies. If so, they could be seen as first-order autopoietic systems. In this line of reasoning, people’s autopoiesis would be subordinated to the autopoiesis of the societies in which they live. Thus, it could be ethically justifiable the sacrifice of individuals for the sake of societies. In these circumstances — as Maturana and Varela say —, it would very much difficult for human beings to act on the autopoietic dynamics of the societies to which they belong. I certainly agree with this argument, and also think that it is possible to reinforce it with some more considerations. In order to be able to develop them, I will stay in the domain of biology.

We know that an autopoietic system produces itself utilizing resources from the environment. In order to be able to go on with this process, a human organism, for instance, keeps discarding its worn-out cells. These dead parts are continuously replaced for new ones, and so the process continues while the organism keeps alive, that is, autopoietic. However, as far as it is alive, no autopoietic unity discards any of their living components. There are no prescindible parts in natural systems.

As a result — and always keeping the focus on the biologic context —, a society could only be considered autopoietic while satisfying the autopoiesis of all the individuals that constitute it. Thus, a society that discards young and productive individuals (by means of strategies as production of subjectivities, wars, genocide, social exclusion and other forms of violence) is a self-mutilating and therefore pathologic system.

If men were only natural beings, their autopoiesis would obviously be operated only in the natural way. The fact that men are also cultural beings lead them to operate their autopoiesis in a different manner — different and pathologic, because it is a self-aggressive one. Culture conditions individuals, which by their turn reciprocate, and so on, in a circularity that cannot be understood in terms of linear thinking. Why is this so? We know that there are no single-caused phenomena in nature — and this case is no exception. Even so, one can affirm that the main cause of this dysfunction is the prevailing mental model of our culture — linear thinking. We are deeply conditioned by this model, which stimulates immediatism and assign a high value to war and competition. This is the main reason by which our societies are pathologic living systems.

It is very important to repeat that what makes our societies behave like this is not the cultural dimension in itself, but the kind of culture under which we live, that emphasizes the belief that predatory competition is a good, healthy and ethically justifiable way of life. Its most visible practical manifestation is competitivity — the compulsion to not only winning, but also eliminating our opponents, the compulsion of leading to the last consequences aggressivity, implacability and the need to exclude.

All of us are to some extent influenced by the unidimensionality of linear thinking, which leads us to think that the most pleasant side of a victory is to defeat someone. This the so-called zero sum game: an interaction in which for someone’s victory to be satisfactory the defeat of the opponent is an indispensable condition. In a climate like this, people, things, and events cannot be complementary: something must necessarily be removed and discarded so that something else could be put in its place. This situation may even be inevitable in some specific contexts, but it certainly does not have the wideness that we imagine.

In any case, the idea of the other as an invariable adversary, as an enemy to exterminate, is one of the fundamental features of the competitivity of our culture. Through it — and specially in the domain of business and corporations —, we live our daily paranoia. It is a worldview that excludes the possibility that the other could be momentarily defeated by one’s competence, but preserved in order to be capable, in the future, to learn how to win, that is, to learn how to be competent. The ideal of competitivity, however, is to win in such a way that the winner could be always the first and the only one — as if we could exist without our human fellows, and, even worse, as if anybody could be the first and the only one without being also the last one.

Let us say the same thing in another way. Some paragraphs ago, I wrote that in nature there is no competitivity. What exists is competence. As noted by Maturana, when two animals meet before the same piece of food and only one eats, this happens because in that specific moment one of them was the most competent to do so. But this does not mean that the animal that was unable to eat is doomed to be, from that moment on, forever forbidden to eat until death arrives. This does not happen in nature.

However, when circumstances involve the competitivity of human culture, the individual who succeeds to eat do not satisfy himself with this fact: he or her needs to make sure that the one who was not able to eat must cease forever to be a threat. In other words, competitive men usually do not feel sure of their competence, so they have the need to get rid of whoever could jeopardise them. In other words, when men cannot trust in themselves as living beings, their peers must be eliminated as soon as possible. But even so — let us insist on this point —, this cannot be ascribed to the cultural dimension in itself: it plays such a role in a culture like ours, which do not know how to deal with aleatority and ceaseless change. And these conditions, as we know, constitute the very essence of life. In other words, we do not know how to deal with autopoiesis — that is why we feel ourselves in need to aggress it and to deny its reality.

It is obvious that these considerations do not invalidate the concept of autopoiesis. On the contrary, it stands even more validated by the demonstration of its efficacy in once more diagnosing the self-aggressive condition of we humans — a condition that we have extended to our societies. Let us recall now the question asked by Maturana and Varela: to what extent human social phenomenology may be seen as a biological phenomenology? The above reflections have already answered it: social phenomenology can surely be seen as a biological phenomenlogy — but it is a pathologic condition.

 

Values and depreciations

Let us add some more reflections. Martin Heidegger, among others, states that individuals have the tendency to alienate themselves to the things of the world. This makes them forget the Being. This alienation leads us to value things in an excessive way and then to depreciate ourselves and, by extension, do deny the humanity of our peers. In other words, people see each other as trading goods. This is a well-known social feature.

In this same direction, our need for transcendence is also depreciated. Let us consider the quest for spiritual values that could guide and justify human existence. In societies as ours, in which people are seen as mere objects, such values tend to be excessively idealized, and this further increases the distance between them and ordinary people. As a result, we will do everything we can to preserve such values, which includes an increased contempt for the lack of transcendentality of our peers, and they will answer in the same way. Psychologist Emílio Romero has an illustrative phrase about this issue: \"It is not easy to love simple, limited, contradictory, oscillating, flesh and bone mortals like ourselves. It is easier do admire distant idols, maybe protectors in their unattainable majesty\".

As history shows, this attitude has produced regrettable results. Everybody knows about societies in which the marked inclination toward spirituality has produced and still produces legions of socially excluded. On the other hand, we know that the excessive tendency toward materiality has produced and still produces the same legions of indigents. It seems that the excess of non-linearity of thought is as noxious to autopoiesis (that is, for life) as the excess of linearity (that is, of rationality).

Furthermore, a new phenomena has appeared and consolidates itself at a fast rate. I am referring to over-idealization of money. As we know, the capital has been since a long time the basic value of our culture. For the past several years, however, it has been very easy to idealize it even more. This is due to the ascent of the so-called \"volatile money\", represented by the intangible ciphers that circulate electronically through the global markets. This enhanced \"transcendentalization\" of money has been adding, now in a vertiginous way, more fuel to the bonfire in which the socially excluded are mercilessly burned out. This discardability of people — which is the basic manifestation of the pathology of our culture — is quickly increasing as years go on. Thus, a truly autopoietic society cannot coexist with the predatory competition which is the outstanding mark of our culture.

Summing up, these reflections lead to the following conclusions:

a) As proposed by Maturana and Varela, autopoiesis is indeed a concept that resolve and clearly defines the problem of biologic phenomenology.

b) According to this viewpoint, social phenomenology can be seen as a biological phenomenology, because society is composed of living beings. As a consequence, the idea of autopoiesis, when applied as an instrument of social analysis, confirms the conclusion already established by other means of investigation — that our societies are self-mutilating, pathologic systems.

c) A sizeable part of this pathology may be explained by the fact that the mind of our culture is formatted by linear thinking, which states that causes stand immediately before effects or are very close to them, and maintains that these relationships always occur in the same context of space and time.

d) This mental model is obviously necessary for the understanding and the practice of the mechanical circumstances of life (material production, ingestion, processing, excretion, and exchange of tangible goods), but it is not sufficient to understand and to deal with the events of life that involve feelings and emotions.

e) As a result, the linear mental model is only adequate as a basis for the conventional market economy, that underestimates or simply discards the non-mechanical dimensions of human existence. As a consequence, this economy keeps creating scenarios in which the integral human being (that is, the complex human being) is always divided, used and finally excluded.

f) Therefore, we are talking about the consequences of an oversimplification of human condition, which pretends that it is possible to resolve systemic problems by means of a linear and unidimensional mental model.

g) As a result, increasingly morbid societies have been built, which insist in disrespecting the autopoiesis of their components. We live in communities that describe themselves as always looking for a good quality of life. However, when observed with a more rigorous look, what can be seen is that this quality is accessible only to a minority. Furthermore, the costs of this quality are dangerously (and increasingly) high, because it keeps generating a dreadful series of by-products — which begin with social exclusion and end in death.

 

文明，社会和自创生

自创生的概念早已超出了生物学领域。这个概念已经被不同的领域所引用，例如社会学、心理学、管理学、人类学、文明以及其他更多的方面。现在它已经转变为一个有力的工具，用来对真实的现象进行研究。一年前，智利科学家Humberto Maturana和Francisco Varela提出了下列问题：人类社会的现象再多大程度上可以被看作生物现象？这篇文章的目的便是试图为这个疑问寻求答案。然而，在这之前，我认为有必要首先介绍一下这两位作者提出的一些基本概念。
 

自创生

Poiesis是一个希腊名词，意为创造，生成。Autopoiesis的意思就是autoproduction，即自创生。1974年，由Varela, Maturana, 和 Uribe合作的一篇文章中，这个词语被首次提及，这篇文章认为有生命的活物可以被看作是一个系统，它们不停的创造自己。因此，这个既是生产者又是产品的系统被它们称作autopoietic系统。

用Maturana的观点来说，"autopoiesis" 这个词特指他所说的“活系统原动力的核心”。活系统的动力是自主的，它需要从它所在的环境中获取所需的资源。换句话说，它们既是自主系统，又是依赖系统。因此，这形成了一个悖论，这种自相矛盾的情形不能用线性思维去理解，通常我们都会用这种思路把每件事情都换算成是或否，这种二进制模式。当我们处理与生命有关的事物时，线性思维开始割裂它们之间的联系，然后会把它们分割成独立的部分，而不是试图寻找存在于这些部分之间的动态关联。

这种自主-依赖悖论是生命现象的一个独特之处，只有当你用包含系统思维（审视各部分之间的动态关联）和线性思维的方法去思考时，才可能更好的理解到这一点。这种模式已经被法国人Edgar Morin最先提出，他称之为“复杂思维”。

在这里有必要重温一下，Maturana 和 Varela提出的一个生动的比喻。他们认为，生命系统是一台自生产机器。没有其他任何种类的机器可以做到这样：他们的产品永远都是不同的自己。由于自创生系统同时身兼生产者和产品，因此也可以将他们称为循环系统，它们是在一个闭环上进行生产。Maturana认为，我们如果不能理解活体细胞的系统特性的话，将无法正确的认识活体组织。在这里，我再次提到理解，这种理解只能建立在复杂思维的基础上。然而，我们所处的文化处处都深深打着线性思维的烙印。这一事实将造成重大的后果，其中有一些非常严重，在本文后面我们还会提及。
 

结构，组织和结构决定论

正如Maturana 和Varela书中所述，生命活体是结构决定系统。对我们来说，在一个已知时刻将会发生什么取决于我们在这一时刻的结构。作者们把这一概念称为结构决定论。在一个给定系统的组织中，是结构保证了系统各个组分之间的关联不被改变。让我们先来看一个无生命系统的例子——一张桌子。它的任意部分都可以修改，但是只有所有这些部分都连接在一起，它才是桌子。然而，如果我们把它各个部分分离并且独立起来，这个系统将不会被认为是一张桌子，因为它失去了组织。这样的话，我们可以称这个系统消亡了。同样的，一个生命系统的结构一直都在改变，这种不断的改变是根据环境的连续变化所做出的连续调整。尽管如此，组织的丢失也将会造成系统的死亡。

因此，系统的身份是由组织来确定的，而结构确定了系统各个部分之间的天然联系。组织认证了一个系统的身份，以及系统的大致轮廓。结构表现了部分之间连接的方法。系统对结构改变所能忍耐的极限就是组织的丢失。

生命系统屈服于结构决定论这是事实，但这并不意味着他们是可预见的。换句话说，它们是确定的，但这不意味着它们是预设的。事实上，它们的结构一直在变化——与环境的不确定变化相匹配——这与预设完全不同，倒是与循环有些类似。为了避免在这个问题上产生歧义，我们一定要记住这个细节：对于一个系统来说，它在已知时刻将要发生的事情取决于系统在此时此刻的结构。

我们在我们所生活的这个世界中建立了我们的知觉，我们的结构允许我们拥有这些能力。因此，我们的世界只是我们认识到的世界。如果依赖于我们结构的感知就是现实——对于个体而言——那么对人的感知可以得到更多的现实。这样就解释了为什么说那些纯粹的客观知识是不可能的：观察者在观察时是不会与观察对象分离的。因为我们和观察对象一起工作，已经被由此（观察，译者注）带来的内在联系结合在一起，从而被确定了（通过我们的组织），环境仅仅触发了我们组织的变动，由此确定了组织的结构。一只猫仅仅用猫的结构来感知和它互动的世界，而不会感知它所没有的轮廓，对于人类来说也是如此。同样，我们人类也不可能从猫的角度观察世界。

因此，我们没有足够的证据断言客观现实的真实性，尽管这一点曾经令我们如此骄傲。用Maturana的观点来说，当某人（他或她）声称是客观的，这意味着此人获得了一个特权视角，并且这项特权在某些方面允许他或她使用这项权力让其他不客观的人承认这一点。这就是所谓逻辑推理的基础。

我们的习惯诱导我们像看待一件物体那样看待世界，因此在思考的同时把自己排除在外，甚至走得更远：我们像观察者那样审视自我，把自己和被观察的那部分分离开来。为了体现客观，必须在自我和世界之间建立边界，同样的边界也建立在在自我和我们要用自我去审视的自我个体其余那部分之间。因此，我们的认知来源于分裂的自我，这造成了认知的分歧和限制。

我们所断言的客观，最终结果是：一个片面和受限制的世界观。这样的立场导致我们认为自己有权审判那些不认可我们观点的人，并谴责他们是“不客观的”以及“不理智的”人。换句话说，从一个片面和受限制的世界观出发，我们认为可能由此得到真理，并展示给我们的同类——我们认为真理对于任何人来说都是相同的。
 

结构耦合

根据Maturana和Varela的说法，生命系统的转变和环境的转变是对应的，脚总是适应鞋，反之亦然。这是一个很好的方式，环境引发系统结构的变化，而系统的反馈引起环境的改变，形成一个循环。当一个系统影响其它的系统时，后者通过反影响做出回应，也就是说，形成了补偿的特征。前者再一次对后者施加作用，后者再次回应——等等，只要这两个系统都在运行，这种连接就会继续下去。

我们已经知道，生命系统通过他们的结构来确定。尽管如此，我们仍要记住，当一个系统和其他系统在结构上联系在一起时，它们中的某一个（系统），在某一时刻的关系，来源于对于其他系统连续刺激的回应。因此，这些都是交互的和重复出现的事件。当一个系统影响其他系统，影响一方支持了被影响者结构的改变——畸变。在回应中，影响系统为影响者给出了这种影响是怎样被感知的解释，一段会话因此被建立。换言之，一对结构匹配的系统，通过互相作用开始了一段协商会话。这种相互作用就是语言。

换一种思路，在交易范围内，每个机体的行为都相当于它的伙伴的特性的描述。每个个体“告诉”其他个体，它的“消息”已经被感知。这解释了为什么自然系统中不存在竞争，所有的存在者都共同协作。然而，当自然界出现了文明——比如人类的出现——事情发生了变化。

我再次强调，在没有人类存在的环境中没有竞争（这是一个有掠夺意味的名词）。当人类把某些动物称为猎食者时，它们（这些动物）被赋予了人的特征，在这种状况下我们只是用人类的特性来猜度它们的行为。因此它们之间不存在竞争，没有人类存在的生命系统不会“支配”其他个体的行为准则。如果自然条件没有变化的话，它们之间不会产生权威的命令，也不会有无条件的服从，生命是自主的系统。个体根据自己的结构决定自己的行为，也就是说，它们的表现来自于环境的影响。它们没有征服系统，也就是说，它们不会无条件的服从来自外部的决定。

在人类社会中，成功的条件不仅仅来自自然，还包括销售以及其他的在整个人群中进行大规模尝试的手段（有很多成功的案例）。因此，被统治的人群可能达成大规模的生产，这样一来将会提供大范围和连续不断的刺激。这就是精神分析学家Felix所说的主观生产。提出这个概念的同时，他介绍了有关的思想，那是一个工业化的大规模生产，资本主义方式的主观。这些活动造就了庞大的调节系统，借助资本（目前它处于新自由主义的胜利阶段）建立和维持权力的市场。换言之，所有这些努力都是为了巩固和维持对生命系统最基本特性——自创生的暴力压制。

生命系统的结构决定论概念对许多人类活动的领域是非常重要的。比如在心理治疗方面，移情（心理学名词，包含想象、隐喻、心智直观，译者注）和反移情可以被理解为这种结构耦合的表现，其中终端持续的改变仅仅依靠他或她的结构来确定。因此，治疗专家无论如何也不会考虑它们之间的因果关系。因此，重要的是记住自创生系统的结构耦合决定了协商的范围是真正的语言会话，但不是纯粹的信息传输。

社会延伸

Maturana和Varela指出，达尔文的进化论超越了生物界单纯的多样性，它们的起源和发展涉及到更多领域，比如文化。正如我们所致，进化论强调物种的量纲，倾向和自然选择。这些概念目前是社会达尔文学说的基础，所谓的社会达尔文主义是利用达尔文的思想鼓吹人和人之间掠夺性的竞争。从这个意义上说，这是一个原教旨主义的解释。

用同样的方式，这种超然物外的思想已经被用来证明社会中的排斥和联盟现象，比如政治和经济的剥削。从这一点考虑，与其他物种相比，个人的价值和意义都要小得多。结果造成了，人们为了让物种永久性的延续而甘愿显出一切（甚至包括他们的生命）——但恰恰相反，这件事情并不总是正确的。

当谈及这个问题时，Maturana和Varela重新强调了下列理由，在我们的社会中，这些理由已经被广泛认可：

a.进化是人类物种的进化；

b.根据自然选择规律，适者将生存；

竞争导致进化，这也同样适用于人类；

d.那些被淘汰的物种是因为没有能力为人类这个物种的演化史作出贡献。

综上所述，个体应当阻碍自然的演化，并设法使其停留在一种消极的状态——这都是为了物种的生存。

然而，作者同样指出，当有人需要证明个体仅仅是物种的从属时，上述论点是站不住脚的，因为生物现象发生在个体，而不是整个物种。换言之，这些理由之所以不成立是因为生物现象存在于局部，而不是整体之中。自从一个个体被它的结构所确定，获得生命开始——这就是自创生——无论从人类、物种、社会还是其他方面而言，不应该存在无用的个体，因为它们都可能是重要的或先验的。
 

授权，社会和个体

在本质上——正如Maturana 和 Varela所述——自创生系统的趋势是结构越来越趋向复杂。更简单的自创生单元可以耦合成更加复杂的组织，支配它的规律是等级原则：一个系统被比它地位更高的系统包含其中；而后者也被地位更高者包含；诸如此类。根据Maturana和Varela观察，多细胞组织中包含上述现象，单个的细胞个体中或许也是如此。

关键的问题时，我们需要知道这种规律是否也同样适用于人类社会。如果确实如此，那么它们（可能指人类个体，译者注）可能是第一级自创生系统。据此推断，人的自创生过程将从属于他们所在社会的自创生过程。因此，个体为了社会的延续，有可能会因为道德的理由而被牺牲。在这样的情况下——正如Maturana和Varela所说——人类将难于对他们所在社会的自创生动力产生影响。我非常同意这个理由，并且也认为可能有更多的理由支持这个想法。为了能够进一步发展这个思想，我将在其中保留生物学的内容。

我们知道，一个自创生系统利用环境中的资源产生自己。我们举一个人类机体的例子，为了能够延续这个过程，机体一直在丢弃无用的细胞。那些死亡的部分被新个体不断的代换，只要组织保持活力，这个过程将一直进行，这就是自创生。然而，只要活力存在，没有一个自创生系统会丢弃活的成分。自然系统中没有可分离的部分。

因此——始终保持在生物学语境中的关注——既然组成社会的所有个体都是自创生的，那么这个社会也只能将其看作自创生的。因此，一个抛弃年轻个体和生产者（这里指主管的生产策略，战争、种族灭绝，社会排斥以及其他形式的暴力）的系统是一个自我毁灭的系统，也是病态的系统。

如果人仅仅存在于自然中，那么显然，他们只可能通过自然方式进行自创生活动。而事实是人存在于文明之中，这导致他们的自创生遵循完全不同的习惯——这是一种病态的习惯，因为这是一种自我掠夺的方式。文明条件下的个体需要彼此回报，诸如此类，这个循环不能用线性思维去理解。这是为什么呢？我们知道，自然界中没有绝对独立的现象——这种情况也不例外。即便如此，可以断言机能障碍的主要原因是我们文化中的主流思维模式——线性思维。我们深陷这种模式，这种模式对战争和竞争有着浓厚的兴趣。这就是我们为什么说这个社会是一个病态的生命系统的主要理由。

有一点非常重要，需要重申的是，什么原因使得我们的社会没有像它的文明层面表现的那样，而是在我们生存的文明外衣之下，让我们相信掠夺性的竞争是好的、健康的、道德的和正当的生活方式。在实践中，最明显的表现是竞争——强迫你不仅仅要获胜，而且还要消灭你的竞争对手，最终这导致了侵犯、矛盾以及必需的淘汰。

在某种程度上，我们都受到一维线性思维的影响，这导致我们沉迷于击败竞争对手后的快乐。这就是所谓的零和博弈：竞争中获胜的一方获得满足，而失败的竞争对手遭受损失。在这样一种氛围中，人、事、物均无法互补：一些事物必然要被推翻和抛弃，由另外一些事物取而代之。在这种特殊的背景下这种处境无法避免，但它肯定不出乎我们的意料。

不管怎样，永远把其他人当作竞争对手，消灭敌人，这是我们的文化中一个重要的特征。正因为这样——特别是在商业领域——我们每天都生活在妄想中。这种世界观要求每个人都要随时准备利用自己的能力把对手击败，而且为了保持自己的能力，要不断的学习如何获胜，为此，还要学习怎样拥有能力。然而，理想的竞争就是这样一种方式，获胜的一方是第一个，也是唯一的一个——就好像我们可以在没有人类同伴的条件下存在，并且，甚至更坏，任何人都可以成为第一个也是唯一的一个，同时也是最后一个。

同样的事情，我们可以使用不同的方法。在前面的段落中，我曾经写道在自然界是没有竞争的。存在即是能力。Maturana也注意到这一点，当两只动物遇到了同一块食物，而食物仅够其中一只果腹，因为这是在特定的时刻发生的事情，此时将凭借能力决定胜负。但这不意味着没有能力获得食物的动物自那一刻起，直到其死去永远被禁止进食。这种事情没有在自然界中发生过。

然而，从人类文明深陷竞争的那一刻起，成功的个体并不满足于自己得到食物这个现实：他或她们需要确认失败者永远不会成为威胁。换句话说，好斗的个体通常无法把握他们的能力，它们需要摆脱那些可能会成为它们潜在威胁的个体。也就是说，当人不能确信自己的生存机会的时候，它们的同伴必须被尽快的消灭。但即便如此——让我们坚持这一点——这不能归咎于文明本身：像我们在文明中扮演的这类角色，不知道如何去处理完全不确定的，以及永不休止的变化。并且正如我们所知，这些变化构成了生命的本质。也就是说，我们不知道怎样处理自创生——这就是为什么我们感觉应该去冒犯它，并否认它的现实。

显而易见，这些考虑并没有让自创生这个概念失效。恰恰相反，这种观念逐渐站住脚，并且在人类自我侵犯的状况下它再一次现实了判断的效果——自创生是我们社会延续的条件。我们现在回想一下Maturana和Varela提出的那个问题：人类社会的现象在何种程度上可以被看作生物界的现象？上文已经给出了答案：社会现象当然可以被看作生物现象——但它是病态的现象。
 

价值与贬值

接下来让我们进行一些更深入的思考。马丁·海德格尔，以及其他的科学家都论述过，个体都存在一种倾向，这种倾向令他们热衷于世界中的事物。这令他们忘记了存在。这种倾向导致我们用过分的手段去衡量事物的价值，然后贬低自己的价值，自然而然的，令我们否认了同类中人性的价值。换句话说，人们把其他人都看作可交易的货物，这是众所周知的社会现实。

同一方面，我们也需要超越价值的贬值。这令我们考虑寻求宗教价值，去指导和规划人类的生活。在我们的社会中，人被看作纯粹的物体，这种价值倾向过于理想化了，这进一步增加了普通人之间的距离。这样一来，结果是我们为了保持自己的价值将会做任何事情，包括越来越漠视我们的同类，并且他们也会用同样的方式回应。心理学家Emílio Romero曾经就这一问题表示：“我们对自己骨肉同胞的爱是单纯的、有限的、矛盾的和犹豫不决的，即便这样也不容易，相对来讲我们更容易做到对偶像的崇拜，或者是那些高不可攀的权贵。”

历史表明，这种态度造成了令人遗憾的后果。每个人都知道，这个倾向于精神崇拜的社会产生了并且一直在产生众多的社会排斥；另一方面，我们知道过分的物质倾向已经产生了并且仍然在产生众多的贫困。看起来好像过多的非线性思维对于自创生来说就像过多的线性思维一样，都是有害的。

另外，一个新的现象正在快速出现和巩固。我指的是金钱的过度理想化。如我们所知，这个中心长久以来是我们文化中的基本价值观。但在过去的几年中，它越来越被理想化了。这是由于所谓的“游资”越来越多，它代表着在全球市场中流动的电子货币。这种“超货币”的增加为本来已经熊熊燃烧的社会淘汰之火又添了一把柴。寄食者——这是我们这个病态文明的基本表现——近年来持续快速增长。因此，一个自创生社会不可能与我们文化中存在着掠夺性竞争的不完整市场共存。

综上所述，这些思考得出以下结论：

a.Maturana和Varela所提出的自创生概念明确的定义了生物界现象的各类问题。

b.根据这个观点，社会现象可以被当作生物现象来观察，因为社会是由生命个体组成的。因此，自创生的思想可以作为社会分析的有力工具，经过调查我们做出了这样的结论——我们的社会是一个自我摧残的，病态的系统。

c.这些病变中相当可观的一部分，可以用我们文化中的线性思维模式来解释，所表述的这些理由足以说明此前的结论，或是非常接近，并且维持这些关系总是发生在相同的时空背景之下。

d.这种心理模型对于理解和实践生命环境中的机械活动（物质生产、摄取、加工、排泄以及有形货物的交易）显然是有必要的，但这并不足以理解和处理与生命有关的涉及到感觉和感情有关的事物。

e.因此，对于通常的市场经济来说，线性心理模型仅仅只是一个基本模型，它低估或简化了人类生活中的非机械因素。因此，对于总成这个经济体的人类个体来说，它们总是被支配、使用和抛弃。

f.因此，我们正在谈论的这个结论相对于人类的状况被过于简化了，借助于线性和一维心理模型来解决系统问题是一个伪命题。

g.因此，社会变得越来越病态，对于它的组件的自创生行为没有必要的尊重。我们居住的社区总是把自己描绘的看起来有很高的生活质量，然而，当我们用更严格的目光来审视时，我们所看到的优良品质仅仅是为少数人独享的。而且，这种优良品质的成本高的可怕（而且越来越高），因为它持续的产生了一系列副产品——它将以社会的排斥开始，以最终消亡而告终。